Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

[Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com>]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote:

> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty. The
> point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root, or
> only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
> rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
> by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.

exactly.  and i support your view of the chiness position.  now i know the
chiness are twice as smart as we give them credit for.  so i would say
they would put some added catch 22 into the works that would favour them.
and possibly use a terrorist angle - which is all the fashion rage this
year i hear.

> Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
> oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon hear
> Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that this
> is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
> despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to do.

i don't know about the right and need to do.  in a perfect democracy no
eboarders are required.

> The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
> impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a judicial
> boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint or
> understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet, and
> the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing them.

exactly and with satellite technology routing around governments is
elementary.

> If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not have been
> anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this way.
> Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.

i have some bad news.  i have examined jim flemmings ipv8 and i would not
be surprised if that protocol ends up as kiddie porn heaven.  in fact
any group who does not want to be traced can use ipv8 to communicate
securly in secure user communities.  it would put the power of napster
into the hands of kiddy porn sites and of course anyone else with an
interest in privacy.  impossible to trace.

we live in interesting times.  i understand thats a chiness curse too.

regards ;)
joe

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html